IR 05000270/1973005
| ML19317D359 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Oconee  |
| Issue date: | 05/10/1973 |
| From: | Jape F, Murphy C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19317D353 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-270-73-05, 50-270-73-5, NUDOCS 7911270576 | |
| Download: ML19317D359 (10) | |
Text
.
_ _ _ _ _,
,,
.
- '# #
UNITED STATES
.
'q ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION-Jrxe DIECTCRATE OF RIGULATCRY CP RATICNS
-
7..
f acoms n - suit E eia
,
- , c,g '.ra c* y
,
230 P E ACM? R E E ST R E ET, N ORT HwEST
,
,,
,,,,,,,
,,,
sr ATc4ur4,cEcac 4 som l
<
RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-5 Licensee: Duke Pcwer Cocipan, Power Building 422 South Church Street
.
Charlotte, North Carolina 28201 i
Facility Nane: Oconee Unit 2 Docket No.:
50-270 License No.:
CPPR-34 Category:
B1 Location: Seneca, South Carolina Type of License: B&W, FTA, 2452 Mw(t)
Type of Inspection: Routine, Unannounced Dates of Inspection: April 25-27, 1973 Dates of Previous Inspection: March 15-16, 1973
<44L I~ # ~ b Principal Inspector:
h^b
/
F. Jape, Reactor Inspector Date Facilities Test and Startup Branch Accompanying Inspector: None Other Accompanying Personnel: None Reviewed by: - [
V/
/
<
3'
C. E. Murphy, Acting Chief, Facilities Test and Date Startup Branch i
'
-
q0 l
qgli
'
-
-
.-.
_
_
%
--
w
._
,
.<
.
,
.
-
.
.
R0 Rpt. No. 50-270/7.3-5-2-
.,
L)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS I.
Enforcement Action
<
-
I
'
'
None II.
Licensee Action on Previously Identified Enforcement Matters a
'I None applicable.
i i
III.
New Unresolved Items
'
,
,
i, t
l 73-5/1 Reporting Comconent Failures As An Abnormal
'
Occurrence Or As An Unusual Event i
Statements within periodic test procedures imply i
that all component failures are to be reported as an unusual event. Multiple or generic failures which negate the intended safety function should be reported as an abnormal occurrence.
Clarification of these definitions is pending.
(Details, paragraph 2.mm)
,
l )
<
73-5/2 PT 620/15 Keowee Hydro Operational Test The initial conditions for this test specif prestarting the d.c. oil pumps.
This action does not simulate an actual emergency startup of the hydro plant. Additional testing of the oil pump is under consideration.
(Details,
paragraph 2.kk)
73-5/3 Adequate Test of the LPI System
,
.
I The available test procedures on the LPI system do not include a response check of the pump as prescribed on page 6-13 of the FSAR. Additional tests for this
,
Bystem are in preparation.
This item will be carried as an unresolved item until the additional tests have been reviewed and found adequate.
(Details, paragraph 2.j)
IV.
Status of Previousiv Reported Unresolved Items
,
'
73-1/1 Test Procedure Index Disagrees With FSAR No change in status. _ Test requirements for the core
,
flooding system remain to be resolved.
l V.
Design Changes
-
.
None l
.
..
.-
-._ -. -
_
...
. -
,
!
~
!
l
.
.--
_ _
,_
.
_.
- _
.
.
j
-
-
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-3-
,,
VI.
Unusual Occurrences None VII.
Other Significant Findings None VIII.
Management Interview A management interview was held with J. E. Smith, Plant Superintendent, on April 27, 1973, at the conclusion of (
the inspection.
The following items were discussed:
A.
The inspector stated that he had reviewed 45 test
,
I procedures (TP), periodic tests (PT) and instrument
!
procedures (IP). As a result of this review, three I
comments were discussed and each is carried as an l
unresolved item.
(Details, paragraphs 2.j, 2.kk and
!-
2.mm)
b l
B.
The test results of 4 TE 's and 18 IP's were evaluated
!
by the inspector.
There were no comments or q.uestions on these procedures.
(Details, paragraph 3)
C. -The inspector su=marized the findings from a discussion held earlier with the QA auditor regarding their technique and procedures for reviewing logbooks and other records.
The inspector had no questions on the auditors activities.
(Details, paragraph 5)
D.
The control room log and the shift supervisor's log were reviewed by the inspector. The inspector had no questions or. comments en these two records.
(Details, paragraph 5)
.
.
=
~
^MM" s,w
,,,,,,
&
.
'
l
-
.
-
f RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5
,
,
,
iV DETAILS Prepared by:
4.*'
6'/ 0 ~73
_
F. Jape, Reactor Date Inspector, Facilities Test and Startup Branch Dates of Inspection: April 25-27, 1973
,
-TI Ar.-
Reviewed by:
(-
_
Date
'C. E. Murphy,.. Acting Chief, Facilities Test and Startup Branch 1.
Individuals Contacted Duke Power Company (DPC)
J. E. Smith - Plant Superintendent D. J. Rains - Assistant Plant Engineer G. G. Reynolds - Junior Engineer
-
G. M. Burgess - Junior Engineer W. A. Houston - Junior Engineer H. B. Barron - Junior Engineer J. W. Cox - Assistant Plant Engineer R. M. Koehler - Technical Support Engineer M. D. McIntosh - Operating Engineer L. A. Reed - Shif t Supervisor 2.
Review of Testing Program The following test procedures were reviewed by the inspector.
Comments were discussed with the licensee's representatives and action taken as sun =arized below:
a.
IP 105/1
" Plant Co==unication Test"
-
No comment.
b.
TP 200/5A, " Initial Run of RCP Motors" Inspector's Co=nent - The acceptance criterion is not definitive.
For example, proper motor rotation is not given and " excessive vibration" is not defined.
Licensee's Response - This test has already been run; hence, it is too late to add these data for Unit 2.
Specific values for Unit 3 testing vill be added.
. _ _ _ _
_.
_..,
_ _.. _ _ _ _.. _ _ _
_
_
_
p
,__-
a--
_..a,.,~.
.. ~ ---
-~n., _ _,c.r -
_
-
,
,
-
I RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-2-
-
r-
\\
!
-
v c.
TP 200/16, "RC System Final Cleaning Procedure" No comment.
<
d.
TP 201/2, "CF Tanks Hydro Test" No comment.
e.
TP 202/4, "HP Injectima System Functional Test" No comment.
f.
TP 202/8, "HP Sys tem Flush" No comment.
g.
TP 202/11, " Emergency Power RCP Seal" No comment.
h.
-
No comment.
i
~
1.
TP 203/2, " Borated Water System Leak and Functional Test" No comment.
'
j. TP 203/6A, "500 PSI LPI ES Test" Inspector's Coc=ent - The response of the LPI pu=ps as described on page 6-13 of the FSAR is not tested in this TP.
Where will the pump response be tested?
Licensee's Response - Two other tests, which are still in preparation, will cover the response and other parameters of the LPI system.
~
,
k.
TP 203/9, "BWST Clean and Flush" No comment.
1.
TP 204/6, "RB Sprav System Flush" No comment.
m.
TP 204/2, "RB Soray System Hydro"
>
-
No comment.
<
w
-+A-W-e+-=-a-*
-*4
-
. ~.,
,
.
m.,,,,,
.
'
- =-
=i. - m._=. -----
-- --
-- - -
~.L __-
-. w
- ....
-
-
.
.
t
-
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-3-
,_
(
-
-
n.
TP 210/5, "CA System Functional Test" No comment.
TP 210/8, " Trace Heating Functional Test" o.
No comment.
p.
TP 600/15, "CRD Oeerational Test" Inspector's Comment - The precautionary statement regarding criticality does not appear to be needed since this test is performed without fuel in the reactor.
Licensee's Response - This statement will be re=oved from the test procedure, q.
TP 00/14, " Pipe and Co=conent Haneer Hot Deflection and Inspection Test"
.
,
No co= ment.
r.
TP 306/2, "NI Intermediate Range, Nuclear Detector Electrical Test"
Inspector's Comment - Prerequisite No. 6, IP 301/3J,' is not listed in the test index.
Is this a correct reference?
Licensee's Resoonse - The prerequisite reference should be IP 301/3J, and will be corrected on the master copy.
s.
TP 261/2, "CCW System Functional Test" No comment.
t.
TP 261/6, "CCW System Gravity Flow"
,
No comment.
u.
TP 240/4, "CC System Functional Test" No comment.
v.
TP 251/2, "RCW System Functional and Deerational Test" No comment, s
- =---e-----
- + - -,.
...
,
r w
.
. _.
..-
,_ -
,
_.,n_-
-
_-
!'
.
!
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-4-t (~ ~
.
s..
w.
TP 250/3, "LP Servie.e Water System Functional and Ooerational Test" Inspector's Comment - Engineered safeguards actuation of
"C" LP pump is not tested in this test. Where will this be done?
Licensee's Resoonse - This is checked in TP 600/17, " Integrated ES Actuation Test."
IP 310/11A, "ES Logic Subsystem 1 Module Interlock Test" x.
No comment.
y.
IP 310/10A, "ES Analog Channel 1 Module Interlock Test" No comment.
z.
IP 310/9, "ES Coincidence Logic Functional Test" No comment.
-
aa.
IP 330/3B, "CRD DC. Breaker Trip Test" No comment.
bb.
IP 330/1, "CRD Integrated Test"
'
No comment.
ec.
IP 323/1, "ICS/RC Reactor Denand" No comment.
dd.
IP 310/13C, "RB Emergency Cooling And Isolation Loeic Ch 6 On-line Test"
'
Inspecto'r's Comment - This test is to be performed as part of the preoperational testing progra=, yet in Section 6 it is stated that the reactor is to be in operation.
Licensee's Resoonse - This will be changed to state " Reactor Operating or-Shutdown."
ee.
IP 310/12C, "R3 E=ergency Cooling and Isolation Logic Ch-5 On-Line Test" Inspector's Cocment - Same as above for IP 310/13C.
Licensee's Response - Same as above for IP 310/13C.
- -.
- -..
.-
..... -. - - -
..
.
.
.,
.
,
I t
!
-
!
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-5-t {
,
i sm
{
ff. IP 310/12A, "RPI Logic Ch-1 On-Line Test"
!
Inspector's Comment - Same as above for IP 310/13C.
Licensee's Resoonse - Same as above for IP 310/13C.
gg. IP 340/18, "CRD System Position Indication Tube Functional Test" No comment.
hh, IP 120/5A, " Main Bridge Position and Control" No comment.
ii. IP 270/5A, "FWPT Vibration and Eccentricity Test" No comment.
jj. IP 270/1S, " Turbine Bypass Valves Instrument Calibration" No coc=ent.
kk. PT 620/15, "Keowee Hydro Operational Tes t"
,
Inspector's Comment - In the list of references, Technical Specification 1.8, which defines " abnormal occurrence" is listed, but in part 6.2 of this test, an unusual event report is stated as required when test acceptance is not tet.
In part 6.1, it is stated that the Keowee d.c. oil lift pumps are to be started prior to starting the test.
This appears to negate a portion of the test in that the automatic start of the hydro plant in event of an emergency will not be preceded by a start of these oil pumps.
Licensae's Response - In answer to the first coccent, the
,
reference' to Technical Specification 1.8 will be changed to 1.9 which is the definition of unusual event.
The second comment regarding prestart of the oil pump will be reviewed.
Inspector's Resoonse - The question on prestarting the soil pumps will be carried as an unresolved ites.
.
11. PT 20/7, "Keovee Data Multiolex System Test" No coccent.
.
=-=w
=e-e eg ew e-woms somme.-
-
pu pmm e-
..
=-~~--s-
=
r=
-www**
l J
.
.
.,
}
I
-
j
.
.
,
!
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-6-
! (3
.
s-mm.
PT 290/2, " Main Steam Stoo Valve Closure Time Tes t" Inspector's Co==ent - The statement in part 6.0 regarding
reporting requirements upon failure of these valves is only partially complete.
Failure of more than one valve, or a single failure that is believe' to be generic, should be considered to be an abnor=al occurrence and reported as such.
Licensee's Resoonse - The definition of abnormal occurrence in the Unit 1 Technical Specifications does not include this interpret ation.
Insoector's Response - The definition of abnormal occurrence
'in DPC's Ad=inistrative Policy Manual for Operational Quality Assurance of Nuclear Staticns does include failure of engineered
,
j safety feature co=ponents, as does ANS 3.2 and AEC Safety Guide
16, " Reporting of Operating Information."
f This question wili be carried as an unresolved item until agreement on the definition if reached or until the Units 1 and 2 Technical Specifications are issued.
un.
PT 290/3, " Main stoo Valve Movement"
'
Inspector's Co==ent - Sa=e as above for PT 290/2.
.
Licensee's Resoonse - Same as above for PT 290/2.
PT 204/9, "RB Spray System Engineered Safeguards Test" co.
No comment.
pp.
PT 204/7, "R3 Spray System Performance Test" Inspector's Cc= ment - The operating procedure referred to within this procedure is for Unit 1.
Shouldn't this be a Unit 2 operating procedure?
'
Section 6.4 refers to only part of the acceptance criteria as being fulfilled.
Shouldn't this refer to all parts of the acceptance criteria?
Licensee's Resocnse - The procedure will be revised to
. include Unit 2 operating procedures and to refer to all parts of the acceptance criteria.
.
s.
- - - ~ ~ ~
-
_.. _ _ _
_ _,
_
. _ _ _, _ _
- D
.
.
\\
.
l RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-7-
'
, C3
-
qq.
PT 250/5, "HPSW Pumps and Power Supply Test" No comment.
J rr.
PT 203/8, "LPI System ES Test" No comment.
ss.
PT 202/11, " EPI System Performance Test" Inspector's Comment - The pu=p curves attached to this tes t dif fer from Figure 6-6 in the FSAR. Which is the correct curve?
Licensee's Rescense - A comparison of the actual pump performance curves with Figure 6-6 in the FSAR reveals that the actual curves are within the FSAR curve for Unit 2.
'
3.
Review of Test Results
-
The f ollowing test results were reviewed. These tests have been approved and results accepted by DPC.
The inspector had no comment on the tests or test results, a..
TP 251/4, "RCW Hydro Test"
-
b.
TP 240/5, " Component Cooling Water System Flush" c.
TP 200/5A, " Initial Run of RC Pump Motors" d.
TP 251/5, "RCW Flushing Procedure" IP 161/lA, "RB Purge Control Instrument Calibration" e.
f.
IP 161/lB, "RB Stack Flow Instrument Calibration"
.
-
g.
IP 202/lA, " Seal Return Cooler Te=perature Control Ins trument Calibration" h.
IP 202/lE, " Letdown Storage Tank Pressure Instrument Calibration" 1.
IP 202/lG, " Letdown Storage Tank Teoperature Calibration" j.
IP 202/1, "'O' RC Pump Seal Flow Filter d/p Instrument Calibration"
k.
IP 203/lE, "RB Emergency Su=p Level Instrument Calibratien" 1.
IP 203/1F, "LPI Pressure Instrument Calibration"
.
- _ _
-
.
_
_
_
-
_.
~
.
.
.
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-8-(')
.
IP 204/lA, "RB Spray, Pressure Instrument Calibration" m.
IP 204/13, "RB Spray, Flow Instrument Calibration" n.
o.
IP 231/1, " Quench Tank Level" p.
IP 231/2, " Quench Tank Temperature" q.
IP 231/3, " Quench Tank Pressure" IP 231/6, " Reactor Coolant Bleed Transfer Pump Flow Coolant r.
Storage System"
.
IP 240/lA, " Component Cooling Surge Tank Level" s.
t.
IP 240/1B, " Component Cooling Temperature Calibration" IP 240/1B, " Component Cooling Te=perature Calibration" u.
IP 240/lC, " Component Cooling Pressure and Flow Instrument v.
Calib ration" s
IP 240/1D, " Component Cooling CRD Flow and Filter SP Instrument w.
Calibration"
,
IP 250/1C. "LPSW to RC Pump Motors, LP Decay Heat Co'olers, RB x.
l Component Coolers and HPI Pump Motor Bearing Coolers" l
!
4.
Administrative Poliev Manual for Operational Quality Assurance of l
Nuclear Stations (APM/NS)
l During a previous inspection,1/ a disagreement was noted between the APM/NS and the FSAR regarding review of safety related procedures.
This item has been resolved by issuance of
,
intrastation letter, dated March 19, 1973, to the Oconee nuclear station group heads and the assistant plant superintendent.
'
The letter restates the review commitment to be consistent with the FS AR.
There are no further questions on this item.
.
,
1/ See -RO Inspection Report No. 50-270/73-3, Details I, paragraph 5.
j (
l
I
+
~ - e
=re--.--
m,
_
_
_
F
-
.
l
-
I
,
-
-
I f
.
-9-(j RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5
,
5.
Logbook Review The control room log and the shif t supervisor's log were reviewed.
The period reviewed was from April 1,1973, to April 25, 1973.
There were no comments or questions on these records.
The QA audit checklist for review of logbooks was discussed with the licensee's QA auditors.
The checklist currently in use is slanted toward the preoperational testing program. Several comments were discussed and the licensee's auditor indicated that the checklist would be revised to incorporate the com=ents.
6.
k'itnessing Test Perf ormance
.'
The inspector witnessed performance of TP 202/04, "HPI System Functional Test."
The test was being performed as prescribed in the procedure. The test coordinator and the operators conducting the test appeared to be cognizant and co=petent in performance of their duties.
The test was not cocpleted during the inspector's observation.
7.
Preoperational Testing Program Status No.
j[
Tests completed and Results Approved
19.4-Tests Co=pleted, Results Not Approved
6.4 Tests in Progress
1.5 Test Procedures Approved 206 62.3 Test Procedures in Process
10.4 Total 331 100 Note:
The above does not include hot functional tests.
8.
Status of R0's Review of the Preoperatienal Test Program
_
-
Test Tests Reviewed Test Results Reviewed Category No.
j[
No.
][
30
3 1.8
43
31
3
48
30 9.
Status of System Turnover to operations from Construction
'
All major syste=s have been transferred to operations.
i
-..
. --
-
.
... - - _. -
.
- _ -..
-
&
W
.
'
..
.
'
!,
-
..
l t
-
1 ( '\\
.
l
/
RO Rpt. No. 50-270/73-5-10-
.
10. Followup on Hydro Test Procedures
'
During a previous inspection,1/ the inspector noted that on hydro test procedures, the prerequisites had no signoff spaces to indicate that they had been met.
The licensee's representative stated that subsequent hydro tests will include signoff spaces for prerequisite.
This item was reviewed and found as committed.
There are no further questions or comments on this item.
'
1/ See RO Inspection Report 50-270/73-3, Details I, paragraph 6.a.
'.
.
%
e
%
.
e zg
- **i =
w-
e.
- -. - - -
,,,,
__
_
_ _ _
h